« Co-op of the Day: 86 Prospect Park West 3 BR Streetlevel: Bed Stuy Gets a New Salon »

September 25, 2008

House of the Day: 186 Washington Avenue

186-Washington-Avenue-0908.jpg
What happened to the crown moldings? That's the first question that pops into our head when we peruse the photos on the listing for 186 Washington Avenue in Clinton Hill. After hitting the market last spring with Aguayo & Huebener for $1,739,000, the property sat on the market through the end of the summer. Last week, Corcoran got the nod and re-introduced the 16-foot-wide brownstone at $1,670,000. The house, which was bought for $1,160,000 in 2005, looks like it's undergone a pretty nice restoration, lack of crown moldings notwithstanding. (Some of the new flooring doesn't fit too well with the historic vibe of the house either, but we digress.) Think the combo of price cut and Corcoran marketing power will be enough to get this deal done?
186 Washington Avenue [Corcoran] GMAP P*Shark
Open House Picks 5/2/2008 [Brownstoner]




Posted by Brownstoner at 1:14 PM | Comments (24)
Categories: Clinton Hill, HOTD

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/6373

Comments

If this were a 20-footer, it would probably be worth $1.9 million, so 20% off that gets you to $1.52 million. Maybe $1.6 is possible, but I doubt the full $1.67.

Posted by: in context at September 25, 2008 1:25 PM

Bowling Alley.

...but thank goodnessn Jerry changed his photo. The one he used for years was atrocious.

Posted by: BrooklynGreene at September 25, 2008 1:34 PM

That western side of the Pratt campus is a pretty nice neighborhood (east of Pratt gets fairly ugly), but transportation's kind of a bitch. It's a hike to the G, which isn't the best line ever to begin with. If I were going to spend 1.67mm, I'm not sure this is the area I'd pick to do it in.

Posted by: cwbuecheler at September 25, 2008 1:36 PM

BrooklynGreene...there was abig dust up over jerry a few months ago...the night I outed myself as Bold Type Guest!!! Somebody said he looked very "metrosexual" and got a beat down; and why I couldn't really understand because it just refers to a way of dress.

However, I went to the open house that night on Putnam and I have to say, he needs to update the photo one more time!!! Truth In Advertising begins at home.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 25, 2008 1:38 PM

you'd be surprised how narrow the rooms are in a 16-foot-wide brownstone. . not really luxury living

Posted by: ontheparkway at September 25, 2008 1:39 PM

Yes, ontheparkway...not much room between those parlour entry doors and that fireplace. Can't even put in a coffee table. What are you supposed to put your feet up on??

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 25, 2008 1:41 PM

Nice job of space planning. Finally someone who got professional help instead of kludging it themselves. It's well thought out with decent traffic flows and a minimum of wasted space. Nice roof deck for the top duplex to balance garden access for the bottom one.

Posted by: Ozymandius at September 25, 2008 1:45 PM

ontheparkway, it depends on the layout. if a 16-footer uses the same layout as a 20-footer, the rooms are pretty small. but if the layout is more open with most rooms extending the full width of the building -- as is the case here -- the rooms are just as big if not bigger than the rooms in a 20-footer.

Posted by: z at September 25, 2008 1:46 PM

If I'm interpreting that photo right, the fridge is behind a couch in the dining area. That looks mighty inconvenient, to say the least.

One the most interesting renos I've seen for a narrow townhouse placed the kitchen in the middle of the floorplan, as a wide galley. Don't know why more people don't do it, as it gives a real dining area, with garden views, and keeps a living area, too.

Housing slump aside, I wonder if the problem here is that the owner's duplex is smaller than the rental unit. (since you lose the first floor hallway and foyer space.)

Posted by: Bolder at September 25, 2008 2:03 PM

I lived in a 16' wide house similar to this one and main issue is in the living room on the parlour floor. The room is a bowling alley and is very difficult to arrange the furniture in a way that makes sense.

Posted by: JoeBushwick at September 25, 2008 2:10 PM

Bolder, I think that is some kind of stainless doored cabinetry, and that room is on the ground/garden floor - I'm seeing steps outside the window.

Posted by: cobblehiller at September 25, 2008 2:13 PM

Looking at that photo again, I also think they switched the chair and the sofa for that photo. Look where the TV is vs the sofa, and why would your sofa block the door to the garden that way.

Posted by: cobblehiller at September 25, 2008 2:14 PM

Not loving the renovation, the width, or the subway access. I think it has a bit more to drop to find a market.

Posted by: Left Hook at September 25, 2008 2:15 PM

which "best schools" is this place a "close stroll" away from?

Posted by: i disagree at September 25, 2008 2:26 PM

I looked at this and while it was thoughtfully renovated (including all separate mechanicals so well suited for two buyers), the price still seems high for only 16 feet of living space. As a previous poster noted, the living room on the parlor floor is very narrow, and there isn't much wall space for furntiure since the doors to the common hall take up a lot of space. Since each unit is sticly a two bedroom which limits the rent you might get, garden and/or roof deck notwithstanding, it's hard to make the numbers work. Assuming you can get it for 1.6 and put 360 down, that's over 8k a month including taxes. If you get 3k for the rental, you are still paying 5k to live in a smallish tweo bedroom duplex. Hard to see who that is going to appeal to... =

Posted by: lucybb at September 25, 2008 2:29 PM

Yesterday we were having an argument about access to transportation in Clinton Hill (related to the house on St James I believe it was). I was taking the position that transportation is very accessible in Clinton Hill, but this location really is hard for subway access. You are limited to the G and its a good 10 minute walk away. Hard to see this asking price holding up. I would say 1.3 would be a more realistic ask. As lucybb says above if you are buying with the idea of living in half and renting half you are looking at 5G a month for a two bedroom apt. At 1.3 this formula becomes a bit more doable.

Posted by: wasder at September 25, 2008 3:04 PM

Agree with many of the previous posts. Terrible transportation options,the BQE hovering above, and myrtle ave isnt so attractive either to a person with this kind of loot. That being said, for those out there who want to own a brownstone but cannot afford to spend 2-3 mill in FG, PH, or south slope, I could see someone dropping 1.4 on this place. I mean, what are the other alternatives in this price range?

Posted by: bktycoon at September 25, 2008 3:21 PM

Width is not an issue with everyone. In fact I know of a 14 footer that sold for $2.25m in Carroll Gardens a month ago. This place was renovated and did not feel like a 'bowling alley.'.

Posted by: NewYawker at September 25, 2008 3:26 PM

This is an attractive little house for a couple with a modest income. Or perhaps for a one-parent family. In a rational world it would be worth $350,000 - 395,000. But this is Brooklyn, home of the INSANE real estate markups. Astonishing to think that you would have to be rich to aford to squeeze yourself and your family into this petite 16-footer.
Plus there is poor public transportation in the area yet no place to park your car. Fabulous! Who could want fewer amenities for more?



Posted by: sam at September 25, 2008 3:43 PM

Come on sam...there isn't even anything available in Center City Philadelphia for $350-395,000

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 25, 2008 4:03 PM

Umm, is that really 16 feet wide?? Looks more like 14 to me.

Posted by: sdrubbins at September 25, 2008 4:06 PM

You can get a large brownstone or row house for $350,000 in Albany. I have a place right on the Hudson river for $170,000. Location, location, location. The truth is that people in NYC spend way too much money relative to their income on housing. As someone who used to live in New York (UES) and watching the whole situation over the years, I have to put a large part of the blame on the buyers who often went on bidding wars that fueled the problem. Sure some made lots of money but others are stuck with big overhead for just a place to live.

Posted by: Iknow at September 25, 2008 4:17 PM

Iknow...I left Albany in 1978 to head out to Chicago for grad school. All those brick shells around the governor's mansion and down to the river were selling for $5,000 +/- back then!!!

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 25, 2008 4:39 PM

DaveinBed,
I'm curious why Minskoid needs yet a new photo, is he 'transitioning' or had a facelift or somesuch?

Ik-now,
Sorry to say, but as you acknowledge you cannot compare a rowhouse (most are not brownstone--most are brick)in Albany (which has had zilch appreciation over these past years). Listen, Arbor Hill is a mess and once gorgeous houses are empty. Sad. What a mess. I won't get into the why on this thread. Seems like there once was a big blast of renovations and appreciation in the 70's on all the streets going down the slope from Lark Street and toward the "South Mall"...but prices never really took off, did they? What is the vacancy rate in Albany I wonder...anyone out there have that figure?

All in all, I'm "sorry" to have to "admit" it, but I think I'd really be shell-shocked if I moved to a place relying on just the G train. Have been in FG within minutes of all the trains for so long I shudder to think of the extra hassle involved if you move to a place a good 20-minute walk or a bus ride to Atlantic-Pacific...so for this price, it's a no-go. Cocorum/Minskoid need to get a grip.

Posted by: BrooklynGreene at September 25, 2008 6:59 PM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions